This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. this is a more philosophical or evolutionary question but.

User Info: PokemonExpert44

PokemonExpert44
2 months ago#11
enigma777 posted...
Actually, evolutionists changed to saying apes and humans having a common ancestor.


Evolutionists are insane.
I might just 6-0 you in Pokemon. Watch out for my awesome teams.

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
2 months ago#12
enigma777 posted...
Actually, evolutionists changed to saying apes and humans having a common ancestor.


I don't think that's right. Everything I see still has us in the Great Ape family along with chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. All those species do, of course, share a common ancestor species, but we're still all in family Hominidae today.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: str8Knowledge

str8Knowledge
2 months ago#13
Maybe the fun of things comes first for animals to try things and when the environment favors it does the animal’s physicals evolve.

User Info: darklao

darklao
2 months ago#14
Darwin himself suggested humans and monkeys share a common ancestor on the basis of the tailbone. The "evolutionists" didn't "change" to saying that.

User Info: enigma777

enigma777
2 months ago#15
darklao posted...
Darwin himself suggested humans and monkeys share a common ancestor on the basis of the tailbone. The "evolutionists" didn't "change" to saying that.


Never said he didn't. I just said there were those who used to believe it. Also, why put evolutionists in quotes? It's defined as "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection." Nothing wrong with that.
Proverbs 26:4
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: PurpleLizard

PurpleLizard
2 months ago#16
enigma777 posted...
Actually, evolutionists changed to saying apes and humans having a common ancestor.


This is somewhat of a misunderstanding, and no such "change" occurred. We still believe that humans are descended from apes, because we define both ourselves and our ancestors as being a type of "ape". What is meant by the statement about common ancestry is that humans are not descended from the ape species that we see around us in our present day. You and I can't be descended from chimpanzees because chimpanzees and modern humans both exist in 2019. We're in the same "generation," so to speak, and we have to go back to a "parent species."

When scientists said that humans evolved from apes, many laymen understood that to mean, "the apes that we're familiar with, chimps and gorillas, existed millions of years ago, and humans evolved from them." But chimps and humans BOTH evolved from a common ancestor, and we've BOTH changed over that time (the ape we evolved from would not look exactly like a chimp, or like any one modern ape species, because these species have undergone evolution just like us).So how we describe this relationship to scientifically illiterate people has changed, in order to make it easier to understand, but the underlying concepts are the same.


Also, why put evolutionists in quotes? It's defined as "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection." Nothing wrong with that.


Because we don't say "heliocentrists at NASA discovered something strange in the orbit of Saturn", or "gravitationists study Newton's theories." It's just a weird, unnecessary word. Whenever it's used, you can almost always replace it with "scientist" and the sentence will become more accurate.
1994-0244-1993

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
2 months ago#17
PurpleLizard posted...

Also, why put evolutionists in quotes? It's defined as "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection." Nothing wrong with that.


Because we don't say "heliocentrists at NASA discovered something strange in the orbit of Saturn", or "gravitationists study Newton's theories." It's just a weird, unnecessary word. Whenever it's used, you can almost always replace it with "scientist" and the sentence will become more accurate.

There is, actually, a less awkward term for this: naturalist.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: enigma777

enigma777
2 months ago#18
PurpleLizard posted...
enigma777 posted...
Actually, evolutionists changed to saying apes and humans having a common ancestor.


This is somewhat of a misunderstanding, and no such "change" occurred. We still believe that humans are descended from apes, because we define both ourselves and our ancestors as being a type of "ape". What is meant by the statement about common ancestry is that humans are not descended from the ape species that we see around us in our present day. You and I can't be descended from chimpanzees because chimpanzees and modern humans both exist in 2019. We're in the same "generation," so to speak, and we have to go back to a "parent species."

When scientists said that humans evolved from apes, many laymen understood that to mean, "the apes that we're familiar with, chimps and gorillas, existed millions of years ago, and humans evolved from them." But chimps and humans BOTH evolved from a common ancestor, and we've BOTH changed over that time (the ape we evolved from would not look exactly like a chimp, or like any one modern ape species, because these species have undergone evolution just like us).So how we describe this relationship to scientifically illiterate people has changed, in order to make it easier to understand, but the underlying concepts are the same.


Also, why put evolutionists in quotes? It's defined as "a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection." Nothing wrong with that.


Because we don't say "heliocentrists at NASA discovered something strange in the orbit of Saturn", or "gravitationists study Newton's theories." It's just a weird, unnecessary word. Whenever it's used, you can almost always replace it with "scientist" and the sentence will become more accurate.


But since there isn't a 100% consensus among scientists, that would be misleading. I would, however, be willing to use the suggested term "naturalist."

As for the rest, my whole point was to correct an earlier poster and explain that naturalists say we share a common ancestor with apes, not that we came from them.
Proverbs 26:4
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: PurpleLizard

PurpleLizard
2 months ago#19
enigma777 posted...

But since there isn't a 100% consensus among scientists, that would be misleading.


It was technically only a 97% consensus among scientists for evolution in 2009 (probably higher now), but basically nobody in that 3% was a biologist. Also, almost every scientist who disagrees with evolution does not disagree with the physical evidence for evolution; they simply say that the physical evidence contradicts the Bible, so they go with the physical evidence in their professional lives and the Bible in their personal lives. They live with the cognitive dissonance, or attribute the discrepancy to a miracle, or do whatever they do. But they're not saying that evolution can be proven false purely from secular science.

Like, I don't think you can even get a biology degree at a university unless you at least PRETEND to believe in evolution. They literally teach you something related to evolution in every university biology class. How are you going to get your degree if you tell your professor the material he's teaching is wrong?
1994-0244-1993
(edited 2 months ago)

User Info: enigma777

enigma777
2 months ago#20
PurpleLizard posted...
enigma777 posted...

But since there isn't a 100% consensus among scientists, that would be misleading.


It was technically only a 97% consensus among scientists for evolution in 2009 (probably higher now), but basically nobody in that 3% was a biologist. Also, almost every scientist who disagrees with evolution does not disagree with the physical evidence for evolution; they simply say that the physical evidence contradicts the Bible, so they go with the physical evidence in their professional lives and the Bible in their personal lives. They live with the cognitive dissonance, or attribute the discrepancy to a miracle, or do whatever they do. But they're not saying that evolution can be proven false purely from secular science.

Like, I don't think you can even get a biology degree at a university unless you at least PRETEND to believe in evolution. They literally teach you something related to evolution in every university biology class. How are you going to get your degree if you tell your professor the material he's teaching is wrong?


When I had a couple biology classes in college, I put my full effort into learning more about evolution and was successful, while still being a creationist. I believe you should be familiar with something even if you oppose it. That makes it easier to explain why you think that way.

The professor and I had some great discussions before and after class and developed a strong mutual respect. She appreciated that I used scientific arguments to try and prove my point, instead of just saying I don't believe it and leaving the issue there.
Proverbs 26:4
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. this is a more philosophical or evolutionary question but.